INTRODUCTION: This study examines the impact of smoking cues employed in antismoking advertisements on former smokers. Previous findings indicate that visual smoking cues in antismoking advertisements with weak antismoking arguments can elicit smoking urges in smokers and undermine message effectiveness. This study extends these observations to former smokers asking whether smoking cues in antismoking advertisements influence former smokers' self-efficacy, attitudes, and intention to refrain from smoking, along with smoking urges and perceived message effectiveness. METHODS: The study was a mixed 2 (smoking cues; present vs. absent) × 2 (argument strength [AS]; high vs. low) design where smoking cue was a between-subject factor and AS was a within-subject factor. Potential participants recruited via online ads were screened in a phone interview for their eligibility. A total of 105 former smokers (aged 21-65) participated in the study, which was conducted in a laboratory setting. Repeated measure ANOVA and MANOVA were used for the analyses. RESULTS: The results showed that the presence of smoking cues in antismoking ads undermines former smokers' behavioral self-efficacy, attitude, and intention about smoking abstinence, which increased as AS for the ads increased. Former smokers' reports of smoking urge were not affected by smoking cues or AS. However, consistent with previous findings for smokers, the presence of cues weakened perceived message effectiveness of antismoking ads rated by former smokers. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of smoking cues on former smokers' self-efficacy, attitude, and intention to refrain from smoking is problematic. Inclusion of smoking cues in antismoking ads should be undertaken only when accompanied by strong arguments.
INTRODUCTION: This study examines the impact of smoking cues employed in antismoking advertisements on former smokers. Previous findings indicate that visual smoking cues in antismoking advertisements with weak antismoking arguments can elicit smoking urges in smokers and undermine message effectiveness. This study extends these observations to former smokers asking whether smoking cues in antismoking advertisements influence former smokers' self-efficacy, attitudes, and intention to refrain from smoking, along with smoking urges and perceived message effectiveness. METHODS: The study was a mixed 2 (smoking cues; present vs. absent) × 2 (argument strength [AS]; high vs. low) design where smoking cue was a between-subject factor and AS was a within-subject factor. Potential participants recruited via online ads were screened in a phone interview for their eligibility. A total of 105 former smokers (aged 21-65) participated in the study, which was conducted in a laboratory setting. Repeated measure ANOVA and MANOVA were used for the analyses. RESULTS: The results showed that the presence of smoking cues in antismoking ads undermines former smokers' behavioral self-efficacy, attitude, and intention about smoking abstinence, which increased as AS for the ads increased. Former smokers' reports of smoking urge were not affected by smoking cues or AS. However, consistent with previous findings for smokers, the presence of cues weakened perceived message effectiveness of antismoking ads rated by former smokers. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of smoking cues on former smokers' self-efficacy, attitude, and intention to refrain from smoking is problematic. Inclusion of smoking cues in antismoking ads should be undertaken only when accompanied by strong arguments.
Authors: J K Ockene; K M Emmons; R J Mermelstein; K A Perkins; D S Bonollo; C C Voorhees; J F Hollis Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: C J Gwaltney; S Shiffman; G J Norman; J A Paty; J D Kassel; M Gnys; M Hickcox; A Waters; M Balabanis Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2001-06
Authors: Ronald N Ehrman; Steven J Robbins; Melissa A Bromwell; Megan E Lankford; John R Monterosso; Charles P O'Brien Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2002-07-01 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Andy S L Tan; Vaughan W Rees; Justin Rodgers; Emeka Agudile; Natasha A Sokol; Kyeungyeun Yie; Ashley Sanders-Jackson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: William G Shadel; Steven C Martino; Claude Setodji; Michael Dunbar; Daniela Kusuke; Serafina Lanna; Amanda Meyer Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-01-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Mary Falcone; Caryn Lerman; Joseph N Cappella; Paul Sanborn; Christopher Jepson; Andrew A Strasser Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2013-06-03 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Joanne G Patterson; Brittney Keller-Hamilton; Amelia V Wedel; Theodore L Wagener; Elise M Stevens Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 4.852
Authors: Rachel Kohn; Anil Vachani; Dylan Small; Alisa J Stephens-Shields; Dorothy Sheu; Vanessa L Madden; Brian A Bayes; Marzana Chowdhury; Sadie Friday; Jannie Kim; Michael K Gould; Mohamed H Ismail; Beth Creekmur; Matthew A Facktor; Charlotte Collins; Kristina K Blessing; Christine M Neslund-Dudas; Michael J Simoff; Elizabeth R Alleman; Leonard H Epstein; Michael A Horst; Michael E Scott; Kevin G Volpp; Scott D Halpern; Joanna L Hart Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2022-02